CHANDRADEVI Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above appeals arise out of the judgment of the Sessions Court of Pudukottai Division at Pudukottai in S.C. Nos.7 of 1996, etc. The Sessions Court found the accused/appellants guilty under various charges and convicted them as follows : ChargeOffenceAccusedConvicted/AcquittedSentence Charge-1A1 to A7 Conspiracy S.120-B IPCConvictionNo separate Sentence Charge–2376(2)(C) IPC (14 counts)A1Conviction for 13 counts P.Ws.3 to 15Life + Rs.5,10,000/= i/d 2 years, 6 months under each count. Life sentence for 13 counts to run concurrently. Charge–3S.376/109 IPC A2 to A7A2 to A7 u/s.376/109 IPCLife imprisonment for A2, A4 to A7 - 2 years, 7 months 2D and fine Rs.10,000/= i/d 3 months RI for A3. Charge–4S.354 IPC (4 counts) ref:P.W.3, P.W.5, P.W.10, D.W.10A3Conviction 354 IPC–(1 count only) with regard to P.W.10 – Acquittal w.r.t. P.W.3, P.W.5, D.W.10.No Separate Sentence Charge–5 Sec.313 IPC (8 counts) P.W.4, P.W.5, P.W.6, P.W.7, P.W.9, P.W.13, P.W.14, P.W.15A3Conviction of A3 u/s.312 IPC (4 counts) w.r.t. P.W.4, P.W.5, P.W.6, P.W.14 – Acquitted w.r.t. P.W.7, P.W.9, P.W.13, P.W.152 years 7 months 2D + Fine Rs.5,000/- i/d 45 days R.I. (Total fine Rs.20,000/-) Charge–6S.302 IPC S.302/34 IPCA1 A2Conviction u/s 302 IPC – A1 Conviction u/s.302/34 IPC – A2 Life Impisonment + fine Rs.10,000/- i/d R.I. for 3 months. A2 - Life imprisonment + fine Rs.10,000/- i/d. R.I. for 3 months Charge–7S.302/109 IPCA4 to A7A4 to A7 Convicted u/s. 302/109 IPCA4 to A7 Life imprisonment + fine Rs.10,000/- i/d. 3 months R.I. Charge–8S.343 IPCA1, A2, A4 to A7A1, A2, A4 to A7 - Convicted u/s. 343 IPCNo separate sentence Charge–9 S.201/302 IPCA5 to A7Convicted – A5 to A7 u/s. 201/302 IPCA5 to A7 Sentenced to R.I. for One year + fine Rs.2,500/- i/d R.I. for one month. Charge–10S.201/114 IPCA2A2 is convicted u/s.201/114 IPCA2 is sentenced to R.I. for one year + fine Rs.2,500/- i/d. R.I. for one month. Charge–11S.506 II IPC (4 counts) P.W.4, P.W.5, P.W.6 and P.W.9A1, A2, A4 to A7A1, A2, A4 to A7 Convicted u/s.506 II IPC (2 Counts) P.W.4, P.W.6 only. Not guilty w.r.t. P.W.6, P.W.9.No separate sentence Charge-12 S.420 IPC A1 Convicted u/s.420 IPC R.I. for one year.

(2.) Three sets of appeals are before us. Criminal Appeal No.895 of 1997 is filed by the third accused in the case. Accused Nos.2, 4, 5, 6 and 7 have filed Criminal Appeal No.896 of 1997. Since the third appellant, namely the fifth accused in the case, is reported to have died, Criminal Appeal No.896 of 1997 abates insofar as the third appellant is concerned. The first accused has filed Criminal Appeal No.897 of 1997.

(3.) The facts of the case are stated hereunder :- A news item in "The Indian Express" dated 15.11.1994 under the caption, "Tale of the two who were able to get away" (Ex.D.29), followed by a complaint, Ex.P.25 dated 16.11.1994 given by R. Sureshkumari @ Baby to the Inspector of Police, Viralimalai has laid the foundation for this unparalleled and sensational case of rape of 13 girls and one murder in an Ashram near Tiruchirappalli. In that brief complaint, Sureshkumari has stated that she joined the Premananda Swami Ashram, Mathalai, Sri Lanka when she was six years of age. She was taken to India by the Swami along with 12 other girls in the year 1984 when the ashram was formed at Tiruchy. She had alleged that she was subjected to sexual harassment by the Swami four times even before she attained puberty at the age of 13 and that she was raped within a month on her attaining puberty by the Swami by threat and by beating her with stick. Unable to withstand this torture, she left the ashram at the age of 14 and came to Madras, but she was caught by the police and sent back to the ashram. Inspite of her complaint to her mother, she did not come forward to help her and she had to suffer the torture in the ashram as she had no other place to go. She came to know from some inmates of the ashram that Premananda had not only raped her, but also many other girls in the ashram, and she recorded their conversation in a cassette. In these circumstances, she approached one of her relatives, Ananda Mohan who helped her and Latha, another inmate, to come out of the ashram to Chennai, with the assistance of a Women Organisation. In the ashram, Premananda would not allow them to talk freely to others and they were compelled to undergo this ordeal. Divya Devi knew all this and was abetting the misdeeds of the Swami. Ultimately, unable to bear the torture, she left the ashram on 1.11.1994, but could not gather the courage to give a police complaint. However, with the assistance and encouragement given by the All India Women Democratic Association and in order to see that other girls also are not subjected to the same fate, she had come forward to expose the misdeeds of the Swami and the suffering undergone by her even at the cost of her dignity and modesty. She had stated that many girls had to undergo abortion because of the rapes committed on them by the Swami. She had alleged that one Balan had acted as a pimp for the Swami. She had requested for an appropriate action against the Swami, Divya Devi and Balan. The subsequent news report on these allegations was followed by the registration of a crime, investigation, enquiry, seizure of incriminating documents, materials, evidence and filing of charge sheet. I. Background